On 8 Sep 2005 at 13:23, Phil Daley wrote: > As a sight reader, I would expect that, if there was an accidental in > a previous measure that was tied over into the current measure, the > next time that note appeared in the current measure, it would have a > normal accidental.
I would expect exactly the opposite. If the first note were *not* tied, the accidental would carry over for the whole measure. I see no reason why tying should change that. In either case, tied or not, the appearance of the note a half step away from the first instance seems to me to require an explicit accidental for any kind of clarity at all. That is, the second note needs an accidental no matter if it's the same or different, since otherwise, it's going to be open to interpretation. Indeed, in older engraving styles (e.g., 20 yearw on either side of 1800), accidentals in one voice are not even indicated in other voices. It's quite common in the music I'm working with to see an octave in the left hand of a piano part with the accidental only on the top note of the octave. It doesn't indicate a diminished or augmented octave, wich doesn't exist in that musical style, but implies a harmonic context where all instances of that pitch class get the accidental. Sometimes it's very unclear whether or not some notes should or should not retain the accidental. Sometimes those accidentals even carry over to the next bar line. In those repertories, you really have to use your ear to figure it out. To avoid that, it seems to me that one should be explicit about it. And any time you're changing the accidental of a pitch within a measure, it seems to me obligatory to indicate that explicitly, rather than ever assuming that a note without an accidental will be interpreted as natural. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
